The Successive Visibility of the Church, Appendix – Title page 4
Appendix.
THe most that I here said against the successive Visibility of our Church, is reduced by them to the point of Ordination. They say, We can have no Church without Pastors: no Pastors without Ordination; and no Ordination but from the Church of Rome: therefore when we broak off from the Church of Rome, we interrupted our succession, which cannot be repaired but by a return to them. This is the sum of most of their discourses, in what shape soever they appear. To which I answer.
1. As [a Church] is taken for a Community of Christians, which are really members of the Church universal, so it may ad esse be without Pastors. But the Catholike Church can never be without them: nor yet, any true Political, organized, particular Church.
2. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion that Ordination of their particular Pastors, is necessary to the being of a true particular Church. Bellarmine granteth (Lib. 3. de Eccles. c. 10.) that it is indeed to us uncertain that our Pastors have potestatem ordinis & jurisdictionis; and that we have but a moral certainty that they are true Bishops: though we may know that they hold Christs place, and that we owe them obedience; and that to know that they are Our Pastors, non requiritur nec fides, nec Character Ordinis, nec legitima electio, sed solum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia. [i. e. It is not requisite, that they have faith, or the Character of Order, or lawful election; but only that they be taken for such by the Church.] And if it be enough that their Church repute their Pastors to be elected, ordained, and believers, though they are not so indeed; then can no more be necessary to ours. We repute ours as confidently to be lawfully elected and ordained as they do theirs.
3. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion, that any Consecration (much less Canonical) is necessary to the being of their Vniversal Head. I need not cite their Authors for this; as long as you have 1. The History of their Practices: And 2. The confession of this learned man that I dispute with, in the explication of the term [Pope] in these his last Papers. And that which is not necessary to their Pope, cannot by them be made necessary to our Bishops.
4. Nothing in Church History more certain, then that the Church of Rome hath had no continued succession of a truely elected, or ordained Pope according to their own Canons. 1. If Infidelity or Heresie judged by a Council (in the case of Honorius, Ioh. 23. Eugenius, &c.) will not prove a nullity and intercision. 2. If Simony, Murder, Adultery, &c. will not prove it. 3. If about fourty years Schisme at once will not prove it: none knowing who was the true Pope, but by the prevalency of his secular power; and their writers confessing that it is known to none but God. 4. If intrusion without any just election will not prove it; Then there is no danger to those Churches that are lyable to no such accusations. But if any or all of these will prove it, the Roman intercision is beyond dispute, as I shall further manifest on any just call, if it be denyed.
5. The standing Law and Institution of Christ, is it that gives the Power (by imposing the duty) of Ministration: and Ordination only determineth of the person that shall receive it (together with election,) and solemnizeth it by Investiture: as Coronation to a King, that is a King before.
I have already proved that an uninterrupted succession of Regular Ordination is no more necessary to the being of a Church, then uninterrupted succession of Regular Coronation is to the being of a King or Kingdom: which I am ready to make good.
6. This whole case of Ordination I have already spoken to (so carefully and fully according to my measure) in my second Dispute of Church Government, that I shall suppose that man hath said nothing to me, requiring my reply, on this point, that doth not answer that. And to write the same thing here over again, cannot fairly be expected.
7. Voetius de desperata causa Papatus, hath copiously done the same against Iansenius, which they should answer satisfactorily before they call for more.
8. The Nullity which they suppose to make the Intercision, is either the Ordination we had from the Papist Bishops before our Reformation, or the Ordination that we received since. If the former be a nullity, then all the Papists Ordinations are null; and so they nullifie their Church and Ministry. That the latter is no nullity, we are ready to make good against any of them all.
Object. But if you own your Ordination as from the Church of Rome, you own their Church.
Answ. We consider them, 1. As Christian Pastors. 2. As Popish Pastors; As Christian Pastors in the Catholike Church, their Ordination is no more a nullity than their Baptizing, (which we count valid.) But as Popish, they have no authority for either. Object. But they gave both Baptism and Ordination as Papists, and it must be judged of by the intention of the giver, and receiver. Answ. It is the Baptism and Ordination of Christs Institution, as such, which was pretended to be given and received: Could we prove that they Administred any other or otherwise, they say they would disown it: As such therefore we must take it, till we can prove that they destroy the very essence of it. If it be given and taken secondarily as Popish the scab of their corruption polluteth it, but not nullifieth it. So they profess themselves first Ministers of Christ, and but subordinately (as they think) of the Pope: so much therefore as belongs to them in their first and lawful relation may be valid; though so much as respecteth their usurped relation be sinful. Had I been baptized or ordained by one of their Priests, I would disown all the corruptions of them, but not the baptism and ordination it self.
9. There is no necessity to the being or well-being of a particular Church, that it hath continued from the Apostles daies, or that its particular Ministry have had no intercision. If Germany were converted but lately to the Christian Faith, it may be nevertheless a true part of the Catholike Church. If Ierusalem had sometime a Church, and sometime none, it may have now a true Church nevertheless.
10. If our Ordination had failed by an intercision, it might as well be repaired from other Churches (that have had a continued succession) as from Rome. And much better; because without participation of their peculiar corruptions. Or if any Bishops that were of the Papal faction should repent of their Poperie, and not of their Ordination, they might Ordain us as Bishops, and repair our breach. And indeed that was the way of our continued Ordination. Many that repented that they were Popish Prelates, continued the office of Christian Bishops, and by such our Ancestors were Ordained. As Christianity and Episcopacy were before Popery, and so are they still separable from it, and may continue when it is renounced. Besides what I have more fully said in the foresaid dispute of Ordination, I see no need of adding any more, against this Objection, about successive Ordination and Ministerial Power.
As to their other Objection (which they make such a stir with, and take no notice of the Answer which we have so often given) viz. [When every Sect pretend that they have the true Church and Ministry, who shall judge?] I again Answer, There is a Iudicium privatum, and publicum: A private judgement of discerning belongs to every man: The publick judgement is either Civil or Ecclesiastical. The Civil judgement is [who shall be thus or thus esteemed of, in order to Civil encouragement or discouragement] (as by corporal punishments, or rewards:) This judgement belongeth only to the Civil Magistrate. The Ecclesiastical judgement, is in order to Ecclesiastical Communion or Excommunication. And so it belongs to those with whom the person is in Communion, in their several capacities. The members of a particular Church, are to be judged Authoritatively by the Pastors of that Church, (and by the people, by a Private judgement of Discerning.) Pastors should associate for Communion of Churches: and so in order to that Communion of Association, it belongs to the several Associations to judge of the Members of the Society: which yet is not by a publike Governing judgement: For in Councils or Associations, the Major Vote are not properly the Governors of the lesser part: But those that are out of capacity of Communion, have nothing to do to judge of the Aptitude of Pastors or Churches in order to Communion or non-Communion. And for the Pope, he hath nothing to do with us at such a distance, whose persons and cases are wholly unknown to him; he being neither our Governour nor our Associate. But if we and our case were known to him, he may judge of us so far as we may judge of him. And other judgement (what ever men may say to deceive) there is none to decide our controversies, but the final judgement of the Vniversal Iudge, who is at the door.
A LETTER Written to Thomas Smith A Papist, Concerning the Church of Rome.
LONDON, Printed, 1660.